English Degree

[bilky asko]

Although I am particularly interested in Journalism, would it be worth undertaking an journalistic degree or just an English one?

Like Dr Lobster says, I would recommend the English course because it's more flexible. If you want to go into Journalism though, I'd recommend making sure (if/when) you get to Uni, you look into joining any media societies that exist to get some journalistic experience. Someone with a (relevant, but alternative, like doing English instead of plain Journalism) good degree and relevant volunteering experience is generally more attractive to employers than someone who's passed the 'right' degree, but has nothing apart from their coursework to show off.

If the university has a respected or well known newspaper/media division, that is always a good bit of experience and something to put on your CV, and something you can link an English degree to. A lot of journalists wrote for their university newspaper, or were editors of certain sections, or the whole paper.

[Sput]

One thing that a lot of people overlook (so I'm told by a sort of journalist friend) is that there's a colossal amount of law that modern Journalism degrees teach nowadays, and this is seen as necessary by newspapers because of the environment they operate in. It's also not the sort of thing you can just drum into your new hires with a week-long course. Most journalism courses also include a placement.

I also think the idea that academia has somehow brainwashed the nation is absurd. "Academia" (insofar as university admissions tutors) don't much care where their students come from so long as the numbers add up. Yes, there's a sort of default expectation that you do the 6th form -> uni -> job, but it's mostly been social engineering from the top. I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging people from all backgrounds to go to University, and I think the government rightly realised there's a need to have more highly trained technical people to maintain international competitiveness. It's debatable whether subjects like English go far to address that, but as with any subject if you're not sure why you're doing it then perhaps you shouldn't be there.

[all new Phil]

I'd say that better than a degree in English would be one that you could have a "specialist" knowledge in. One in economics, for example, would be a better way to get into journalism. It's no good being able to write well if you don't know what to write about.

[bilky asko]

Thinking about it, wouldn't it be a good idea to have your degree, as Phil suggested, in a specialist area, and then do a postgraduate degree course?

[cwathen]

I know of two people that studied English, both are now training to become teachers.

Sadly for your friends, whilst teaching is a rewarding and well paid career, and does definately need a degree, the chances of them actually getting into the teaching profession are slim. Even with population increases and the drive to reduce class sizes, there simply aren't anything like the number of vacancies for the number of teachers being created. A teaching course was the last thing I was on before I dropped out of uni, and I can tell you first hand from my fellow students that for many of them their days of working in a school started and finished at uni, or resulted in unsatisfying low paid teaching work in supply, cover or short hour contracts. Even training to be a teacher does not in any way guarantee you a decent well paid career.

the end result of this is that many young people end up doing completely useless or inappropriate degrees. i'm not saying the life experience of going to university isn't useful, but there is this whole sausage factory which just wants you to do something and requires you to make decisions that might well affect you for the next 50 years that have to be made during a summer holiday when you're 17. seems insane to me.

The life experience is amazing, but having wasted 5 years of my life at uni to ultimately come out with no degree, I'm not really any worse off than most of the people I went with who did graduate and have ended up doing jobs which don't in any way use the degree they worked for. Indeed, I know many people who - as a graduate - earn less money in less satisfying jobs with less prospects than I do as a drop out who failed uni.

I've ultimately ended up in a fairly decent job with prospects but which I could have got in to with nothing more than GCSEs - and if I hadn't been pressured into pursuing education until well into my 20's I could potentially be 7 years further ahead in my career, in a much better position today than I actually am, and not have the annoying reminder of 'Student Loan Ded.' on my payslip each month (for I do actually earn enough to repay it) which will probably haunt me for most of my working life.

my day job causes me to come into contact with 6th form students from time to time and the mentality of some of them is that they think the world owes them a living and a degree is this magic fairy gateway to a paid up 50k career for life. most of them are lazy fucking idiots.

In fairness to them, that mentality is institutionalised in to the school system - the people giving advice are after all examples of the few people for whom uni worked and so they have got to where they are in life by going to uni. I was more or less told at 16 that if I didn't pursue A-Levels and then follow them up with uni then I'd be resigned to a life of dead end low paid jobs and this was the only way to make something of myself. By the time I found out that was utter bollocks it was too late.

And thanks will and beep,I see so many people waste huge chunks of their life following misguided advice and pipe dreams, especially now uni is so expensive.

The current funding system is dangerous - both to the student and the ecomony as a whole. When I went, fees were capped at around £1000 / year, with most of that paid (yes PAID, not simply lent the money to pay for as happens now) by the LEA and my personal liability to uni fees (but which I did actually have to pay up front) was only ever around £200 / year.

The tuition fee loans were heralded as a great day for free education by abolishing up front tuition fees but they have ended up seeing fees more or less triple to £3000 / year, and then triple again to £9000 / year - increases which are tolerated because they effectively seem free at the point of use due to the loan.

It is simply not responsible to expect young people at 17 years old to understand the consequences of taking on such huge debts so early in life. As people who, however grown up and responsible they might like to think they are, will only ever have borrowed from the bank of Mum & Dad up to that point in their life, they simply cannot comprehend just how much money they will have to pay back or what a large financial undertaking they have entered in to.

And being that student loans are now getting so huge and the repayments so modest (especially with modern write-off clauses which my loan doesn't have - mine will only be written off if I have failed to repay it by retirement age), I can see a huge number of these loans going unpaid and ultimately costing the economy millions of pounds.

The alternative is that the repayments will have to come into line with more conventional borrowing so that the loans feasibly will be repaid. This means that the niggling £20-£30 which gets taken out of the average pay packet each month could potentially multiply by a factor of 10, leaving graduates struggling financially for years as they struggle to meet the demanding repayments needed.

Either way, it can't be a good thing! I fully agree that a university education should be *available* to everyone, but there really should be more responsibility in terms of imploring young people to actually consider whether they *need* one.

[WillPS]

I know of two people that studied English, both are now training to become teachers.

Sadly for your friends, whilst teaching is a rewarding and well paid career, and does definately need a degree, the chances of them actually getting into the teaching profession are slim. Even with population increases and the drive to reduce class sizes, there simply aren't anything like the number of vacancies for the number of teachers being created. A teaching course was the last thing I was on before I dropped out of uni, and I can tell you first hand from my fellow students that for many of them their days of working in a school started and finished at uni, or resulted in unsatisfying low paid teaching work in supply, cover or short hour contracts. Even training to be a teacher does not in any way guarantee you a decent well paid career.

One of them has already worked at an "Academy" for over a year, and that academy is now picking up the tab for her tuition (which is not a PGCE but something else).

I thought part of the deal with getting accepted on to a teaching course was that they effectively interview you for the job (like with nurses)? The person on the course is under that impression, it's not beyond him to be up his own arse and/or plain wrong though.

[cwathen]

One of them has already worked at an "Academy" for over a year, and that academy is now picking up the tab for her tuition (which is not a PGCE but something else).

Would this be a GTP (Graduate Teacher Program) - a route into teaching where a graduate can work in a school and gain their postgrad qualification there? When I was in teacher training these were touted as the future of teacher training for graduates. They arguably provide much better experience than PGCE (although I still believe that nothing can top a BEd) in that there is much more involvement in the school, but ultimately they cannot get around the issue which all teacher training has - regardless of how good the student is and how willing the school is to take them, it cannot create a job where one does not exist and the number of NQTs simply does not match the number of vacancies. If your friend has gained a teaching position on it, then well done to her. Unfortunately she is one of the lucky few.

I thought part of the deal with getting accepted on to a teaching course was that they effectively interview you for the job (like with nurses)? The person on the course is under that impression, it's not beyond him to be up his own arse and/or plain wrong though.

It is certainly part of the deal that before being accepted onto a teaching course that you will have a formal interview for your suitability for the course and for teaching - so yes you are being interviewed for the job. But a point which simply isn't made to students is that 'the job' is entirely hypothetical until such time as you apply for an actual vacancy - there simply aren't enough teaching positions to provide work for all (or even most of) the NQTs being churned out each year. Most of them simply won't get to make teaching their career, regardless of how good they are.

[bilky asko]

And thanks will and beep,I see so many people waste huge chunks of their life following misguided advice and pipe dreams, especially now uni is so expensive.

The current funding system is dangerous - both to the student and the ecomony as a whole. When I went, fees were capped at around £1000 / year, with most of that paid (yes PAID, not simply lent the money to pay for as happens now) by the LEA and my personal liability to uni fees (but which I did actually have to pay up front) was only ever around £200 / year.

The tuition fee loans were heralded as a great day for free education by abolishing up front tuition fees but they have ended up seeing fees more or less triple to £3000 / year, and then triple again to £9000 / year - increases which are tolerated because they effectively seem free at the point of use due to the loan.

It is simply not responsible to expect young people at 17 years old to understand the consequences of taking on such huge debts so early in life. As people who, however grown up and responsible they might like to think they are, will only ever have borrowed from the bank of Mum & Dad up to that point in their life, they simply cannot comprehend just how much money they will have to pay back or what a large financial undertaking they have entered in to.

And being that student loans are now getting so huge and the repayments so modest (especially with modern write-off clauses which my loan doesn't have - mine will only be written off if I have failed to repay it by retirement age), I can see a huge number of these loans going unpaid and ultimately costing the economy millions of pounds.

The alternative is that the repayments will have to come into line with more conventional borrowing so that the loans feasibly will be repaid. This means that the niggling £20-£30 which gets taken out of the average pay packet each month could potentially multiply by a factor of 10, leaving graduates struggling financially for years as they struggle to meet the demanding repayments needed.

Either way, it can't be a good thing! I fully agree that a university education should be *available* to everyone, but there really should be more responsibility in terms of imploring young people to actually consider whether they *need* one.

Don't fall into the trap that the NUS have set that the new loan system is some sort of evil, terrible system that punishes the poor and will destroy students' lives.

Firstly, the £9000 figure already takes into account people who will not pay off the full amount - 50% of graduates.

Secondly, a student loan is the best debt you will ever have - you can't go bankrupt for not paying it, as the money comes out of your wage. Virtually every student will be, at some point in the future, taking on a mortgage; something that is far more risky.

This new level of £9000 is no worse than the old £3000 for the vast majority, but is of course worse than the free system of yore.

[cwathen]

Don't fall into the trap that the NUS have set that the new loan system is some sort of evil, terrible system that punishes the poor and will destroy students' lives.

Oh I'm well aware of the NUS's view that it is shocking that students should have to pay for anything at all and that those not at uni should feel duty bound to fund every aspect of a student's life to get through their course for free etc etc. The NUS have pulled their usual trick of high-jacking the issue which will result in it being dismissed as nothing more than their bleating and banging their usual 'free education' drum when there is a real issue here.

Firstly, the £9000 figure already takes into account people who will not pay off the full amount - 50% of graduates.

Secondly, a student loan is the best debt you will ever have - you can't go bankrupt for not paying it, as the money comes out of your wage. Virtually every student will be, at some point in the future, taking on a mortgage; something that is far more risky.

But what we've ended up with is the worst of both worlds - people who are too green to understand the ramifications of embarking on something which will land them with over £40,000 worth of debt for potentially no gain, and then a system which will happily throw out such large sums under the guise of 'loans' when a huge portion of them will never be repaid in full (or at all).

It's not teaching young people any financial responsibility when they are entering into a system which essentially says it's OK to pay lip service to your debts, and it's also not benefitting the ecomony to see the Student Loans Company lend out millions of pounds each year on loans which will not deliver a return and the shortfall ultimately will be picked up by the taxpayer - those who do make it at uni, graduate and get a high paying job will spend the rest of their life paying high taxes to fund those who don't despite being amongst those who do repay their bit, and those who never went will pay for it anyway.

This new level of £9000 is no worse than the old £3000 for the vast majority, but is of course worse than the free system of yore.

The difference between the 9K/3K fees and the previous free system or '1K upfront with means testing applied and the rest paid by LEA' system which I had is that the earlier systems were budgeted, costed and paid for without being thrown into the student loan debt pot. Under the current system, the high fees are made acceptable to students by loans which mean they don't need to stump up the cash up front, and made acceptable to the taxpayer for the government to fund since unlike the old system, they are not handouts but loans which in theory will be repaid with interest - but many never will be. And in changing to this system, the cost of tuition fees per degree has jumped in 8 years from £3000 / degree to £27000 / degree.

What we've ended up with is a system which should in theory relieve the burden on the taxpayer paying for people to go to uni but in practice will cost them even more, and it won't benefit those actually going to uni one iota. The fact that I had to actually find £200 of my own money before I was allowed to enrol at uni each year taught me a hell of a lot more about living within my means than being told 'You are personally liable to pay £9000 fees each year - but don't worry about it because we'll lend you the money under a finance deal so brilliant that you might not even have to repay the capital, let alone the interest'.

[WillPS]

My thoughts on student "loans". The fees are now set so high that only those who do really well in life will actually pay them off. With that in mind, why not just spin it on its head and call it a graduate tax - that way those who do really well in life (and can thus bloody afford it) continue to pay.

You'd also then remove the stigma of the word "loan".

[bilky asko]

Don't fall into the trap that the NUS have set that the new loan system is some sort of evil, terrible system that punishes the poor and will destroy students' lives.

Oh I'm well aware of the NUS's view that it is shocking that students should have to pay for anything at all and that those not at uni should feel duty bound to fund every aspect of a student's life to get through their course for free etc etc. The NUS have pulled their usual trick of high-jacking the issue which will result in it being dismissed as nothing more than their bleating and banging their usual 'free education' drum when there is a real issue here.

Firstly, the £9000 figure already takes into account people who will not pay off the full amount - 50% of graduates.

Secondly, a student loan is the best debt you will ever have - you can't go bankrupt for not paying it, as the money comes out of your wage. Virtually every student will be, at some point in the future, taking on a mortgage; something that is far more risky.

But what we've ended up with is the worst of both worlds - people who are too green to understand the ramifications of embarking on something which will land them with over £40,000 worth of debt for potentially no gain, and then a system which will happily throw out such large sums under the guise of 'loans' when a huge portion of them will never be repaid in full (or at all).

It's not teaching young people any financial responsibility when they are entering into a system which essentially says it's OK to pay lip service to your debts, and it's also not benefitting the ecomony to see the Student Loans Company lend out millions of pounds each year on loans which will not deliver a return and the shortfall ultimately will be picked up by the taxpayer - those who do make it at uni, graduate and get a high paying job will spend the rest of their life paying high taxes to fund those who don't despite being amongst those who do repay their bit, and those who never went will pay for it anyway.

This new level of £9000 is no worse than the old £3000 for the vast majority, but is of course worse than the free system of yore.

The difference between the 9K/3K fees and the previous free system or '1K upfront with means testing applied and the rest paid by LEA' system which I had is that the earlier systems were budgeted, costed and paid for without being thrown into the student loan debt pot. Under the current system, the high fees are made acceptable to students by loans which mean they don't need to stump up the cash up front, and made acceptable to the taxpayer for the government to fund since unlike the old system, they are not handouts but loans which in theory will be repaid with interest - but many never will be. And in changing to this system, the cost of tuition fees per degree has jumped in 8 years from £3000 / degree to £27000 / degree.

What we've ended up with is a system which should in theory relieve the burden on the taxpayer paying for people to go to uni but in practice will cost them even more, and it won't benefit those actually going to uni one iota. The fact that I had to actually find £200 of my own money before I was allowed to enrol at uni each year taught me a hell of a lot more about living within my means than being told 'You are personally liable to pay £9000 fees each year - but don't worry about it because we'll lend you the money under a finance deal so brilliant that you might not even have to repay the capital, let alone the interest'.

Whilst I agree with you that the system is nowhere near perfect, I have to say that today's society is one that requires more than "living within your means", if you take that to mean "spend what you earn" - I'm not sure if that is what you mean.

Universities go to great lengths to provide financial education to students, for students who wish to seek it. It is not the university's responsibility to do such things, but they do provide a wide range of help for students. If schools and colleges properly educated pupils and students about finances and the finances of university, then there would be much less of a problem attached to the supposed misnomer.

I still don't think you understand the fact that the shortfall was accounted for - the higher-earning students pay the shortfall. The "taxpayer" is not affected - only the university students are, much later on in life, and the most successful assist those whose gains are more modest.